Not just for knowing

It is probably the teacher in me that makes books like this one so appealing. I was always looking for readings that could explain an unfamiliar subject clearly, briefly, and systematically. That was a purpose Stott's Basic Christianity served for me. Creed: Connect to the Basic Essentials of Historic Christian Faith looks like that kind of book. One of the reviewers at Amazon describes the content:

.... The primary argument of the book is that contemporary Christians need to rediscover the historic foundations of the Christian faith by revisiting the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. Bevins reminds us, "The Apostles' Creed addresses the doctrinal foundation, the Ten Commandments address the ethical foundation, and the Lord's Prayer addresses the spiritual foundation. When the doctrinal, ethical, and spiritual dimensions are woven together, they offer us a balanced model for the Christian life. These three summarize the heart of Christianity and offer us a glimpse of the Christian faith as a whole."

Bevins also reminds us that doctrine matters and is an essential part of Christian faith. He says, "Christian doctrine is not just for knowing, but for living." These three essentials found in the the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments are important tools for Christians everywhere regardless of their background. ....

I bought the Kindle version of Creed. Bevins begins his introduction with a quotation from Robert Webber

Early Christian teaching is simple and uncluttered; it cuts through the complexities of culturized Christianity and allows what is primary and essential to surface.

That is a promising beginning. Later in the introduction Bevins writes:

Christianity wasn't invented yesterday and the church is much larger than one denomination or nationality. These three standards — the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments — have been used as a sturdy foundation for discipleship and doctrine for nearly two thousand years. If they were essential for the early generation of believers, shouldn't they be important to us as well? Why should we reinvent the wheel?

Amazon.com: Creed: Connect to the Basic Essentials of Historic Christian Faith (9781617471476): Winfield Bevins: Books

Liberated from chronological parochialism

Responding to an interviewer's questions, Suzannah, of the site "In Which I Read Vintage Novels," explains the advantages of reading such books:

Three benefits of vintage/classic fiction:

1. The homeland of many, many classic novels is Christendom, unlike the majority today.
2. After all this time, the greats are established and the chaff has been forgotten (although there is also the thrill in discovering forgotten greats).
3. You become a time-traveler, able to look at life from the perspective of an author of some other time period. As a result you become able to recognise the attitudes of different time periods, and are liberated from chronological parochialism. Revisionist history fails to entrance you: instead, you learn from the horse's mouth how people really thought and lived and felt in the time of the Caesars, in medieval Europe, in Victorian Britain, in World War I.

In Which I Read Vintage Novels: Interview - Fiction and Nonfiction

"Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

C.S. Lewis on God's omnipotence, quoting portions from a passage in The Problem of Pain that can be found here:

Omnipotence means ‘power to do all, or everything’. And we are told in Scripture that ‘with God all things are possible’.

It is common enough, in argument with an unbeliever, to be told that God, if He existed and were good, would do this or that; and then, if we point out that the proposed action is impossible, to be met with the retort ‘But I thought God was supposed to be able to do anything’.

This raises the whole question of impossibility. ....

.... His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible.

You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.

This is no limit to His power.

If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it’, you have not succeeded in saying ‘anything’ about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix them with the two other words ‘God can’.

It remains true that all ‘things’ are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities.

It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”

C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, Chapter 2 (“Divine Omnipotence”), 1940

The Possible and the Impossible — C. S. Lewis on God’s Omnipotence | The American Culture

The historical Jesus

Bart Ehrman, who is no longer a Christian, has been shocked to discover that there are those who argue that Jesus never existed. In a new book he sets forth to answer those who question the evidence. Justin Taylor provides Ehrman's introduction from which I excerpt this:

.... Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.

And so, with Did Jesus Exist?, I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in fact, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’s historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stained-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty, about him. [more]

Taylor also calls attention to Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence, by Craig Evans, and quotes from Evans describing the book:

I begin by explaining what archaeology is: the excavation and study of the remains of material culture. In the case of Jesus it means the excavating and interpretation of remains from the first century B.C.E. and C.E. in Israel (Galilee to the north and Judea and Jerusalem to the south). It means correlating what we discover with relevant written records (such as the writings of the New Testament and the writings of Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian). It often means applying space-age technologies. It is hard work and it is very rewarding.

The archaeological evidence shows that Jesus grew up in a small village, Nazareth, about four miles from Sepphoris, a prominent city in the early first century C.E. This city had a Greco-Roman look, complete with paved, columned street, but its inhabitants were observant Jews. The evidence further shows that Nazareth was linked to a network of roads that accommodated travel and commerce. The quaint notion that Jesus grew up in rustic isolation has been laid to rest. .... [more]

The Historical Evidence of the Existence of Jesus of Nazareth – Justin Taylor, Archaeological Discoveries and the World of Jesus – Justin Taylor

Success

In a post he titles "'Success' Is a Hollow Goal," Matt Chandler discourages pastors from using the culture's standards for "success." Illustrating the point:

Here are a few men who loved our great God and King and were obedient beyond the norm:

• Moses spends his whole life with grumbling whiners and dies without getting to walk into the promised land.
• Samson suicide bombs the Philistines, and when the dust settles, he is dead and the Philistines still rule over Israel.
• One of David's sons rapes his sister and another leads a rebellion against him, dethroning him for a season.
• Jeremiah ends up in exile with the rest of the country after repeatedly getting beaten for preaching what God commanded him to preach.
• John the Baptizer is beheaded by a pervert who gives his head to a 15-year-old stripper.
• Peter is killed, reportedly crucified upside down.
• Paul is killed in Rome but only after he spends his life (with thorn intact) being beaten, rejected, lost at sea, and consistently dealing with people coming in behind him and destroying what he built.

"Success" Is a Hollow Goal | The Resurgence"Success" Is a Hollow Goal | The Resurgence

The bubble

Tom Chivers, at The Telegraph, has been reading The Righteous Mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion by Jonathan Haidt:

They asked two thousand Americans to describe their political leanings (liberal, moderate, conservative) and fill out a questionnaire about morality, one-third of the time as themselves, one-third of the time as a "typical liberal", and one-third of the time as a "typical conservative". The clear answer was: self-described conservatives and moderates were much better at predicting what other people would believe. Liberals, especially the "very liberal", were by far the worst at guessing what people would say, and especially bad at guessing what conservatives would say about issues of care or fairness. For example, most thought that conservatives would disagree with statements like "One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenceless animal" or "Justice is the most important requirement for a society". .... [more]

Which helps explain the statement "conservatives think liberals are stupid and liberals think conservatives are evil." A conservative blogger:

...[T]he reason why conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives is because you cannot avoid the liberal mindset in this culture even if you wanted to. It’s flipping everywhere: and you have to learn to recognize at least the basics in sheer mimetic self-defense. Contrariwise, it is exceedingly easy for liberals to ignore conservatives if they so desire; and most liberals do. Honestly, if conservatives could ignore liberals we probably would; we would, if we could, but we can’t, so we don’t. ....

Thanks to Jim Geraghty at NRO for the references.

Why liberals need conservatives, and vice versa – Telegraph Blogs

Living as if....

Non-Christian and non-pacifist Eric Cohen reviews War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections on Violence and National Identity by Stanley Hauerwas:

.... Stanley Hauerwas, one of the most distinguished and surely most interesting Christian thinkers of the modern era, has been in the middle of this moral and theological fray for decades, arguing in various ways that being a Christian means never killing others in war. His new collection of essays, War and the American Difference, is his latest effort to show what it would mean to abolish war, and what it would mean to really live as Christ lived, and to live in the faith and knowledge that Christ’s coming has changed everything. In fact, the central argument of the book is that war has already been abolished, because in Christ we have a way—the only way—to live in peace in the face of the world’s evils.

The essays are provocative, cutting, and filled with interesting nuggets of existential insight into the condition of man and the meaning of faith. And Hauerwas is, in general, charitable to his opponents, be they Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis, Reinhold Niebuhr, or Paul Ramsey. But the larger argument—that we can live as if war has been abolished and that faith in God requires that we live that way—is morally unconvincing and at times morally perverse. ....

For Hauerwas, there is no such thing as a just war, since Christ is the embodiment of justice, and the revelation of Christ is that men should not and need not kill the other we are called to love. He believes the tragic necessity of war is an illusion. It is the denial of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, which we have replaced with the blood sacrifices of modern war. The only answer—for him, the only Christian answer—is to "sacrifice the sacrifices of war" and to see the truth that the new reign of peace has already come. ....

If Hauerwas is the realist he claims to be, let him at least be realistic and honest about what will likely happen if love is our only weapon against those who believe that sending young girls to the gas chamber is rational or that nuclear war against Israel might bring about the new reign of God on earth. ....

...[I]f Hauerwas’ political theology is the true political theology of Christianity, then Christianity is a form of eschatological madness. And most Christians I know are not mad; indeed, they are, in general, the best hope for preserving a decent, God-seeking, free society in the face of the politics of death, desperation, and domination. ....

I do not believe that Hauerwas sees America’s enemies as "harmless, tame, and gentle creatures." He is too smart for that. But either he believes that loving them (combined with our unilateral disarmament) would change them or that dying under their sword would be the only right way to live. .... [more]

Darrell Cole, in "The Problem of War" summarizes C.S. Lewis on the subject of Christian pacifism.

The Sacrifices of War | First Things

Too few books in the Canon?

A Catholic blogger, Joe Heschmeyer, argues that Mark Driscoll is not only wrong about what we Protestants call the Old Testament Apocrypha, but that he is "...not wrong in the sense that I disagree with his reasoning or belief. Wrong in the sense that he makes factual claims that are objectively false." Heschmeyer later comments that "For the record, I think he's sloppy, not acting out of bad faith. He gets historical details wrong all over the place, and on important events." Heschmeyer:

Popular Protestant pastor Mark Driscoll (of Mars Hill church) thinks we Catholics have too many Books in our Bibles. That's no surprise; almost all Protestants think this. But thankfully, Driscoll takes the time to explain why he thinks this, which makes it easy to show where and how he's wrong.

If you're not familiar, the Catholic Bible has seven more Books [Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch (including the Epistle of Jeremy, a.k.a., Baruch 6), 1 and 2 Maccabees], along with longer versions of Esther and Daniel, compared to the Protestant Bible. We call these Books the Deuterocanon; Protestants call them (and several other books) the Apocrypha. So the question is: are Catholic Bibles too big? Or are Protestant Bibles too small? ....

Joe Heschmeyer goes on to quote Driscoll's arguments, responding to each.

A good description of the relationship of the Apocrypha to the rest of the Old Testament can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Modern_editions. [Thanks, Ben]

Shameless Popery: Mark Driscoll and the Canon of Scripture

Re-binding a Bible

Not long ago I purchased an ESV Single Column Legacy Bible, attracted by the idea of a paragraphed, single-column, Bible in my preferred translation, and with a font large enough to avoid eye strain. It is a pleasure to read [see the page at the right - it can be enlarged], but I wasn't satisfied with the binding. That was my own fault — among the various choices I had chosen the least expensive — but if I was going to make this my everyday Bible I wanted something better.

Happily, the Legacy ESV has a sewn binding — signatures sewn to the spine — which makes it a good candidate for re-binding. Some time ago  J. Mark Bertrand's Bible Design Blog had posted an entry highly recommending Leonard's Book Restoration Station, and specifically "Leonard’s Historical Bible Series," which includes a variety of bindings designed to give a "retro look." I decided that I would like my modern translation in such a binding, especially if the quality of the binding was good — and attractive as well.

The way Leonard's works is that you send them the Bible, old or new — they also do restorations of old Bibles and other books — with the style of binding you want, along with any specific requests. They provide an estimate of the cost after which, if you are satisfied, they will proceed with the work, billing you when it is completed and ready to be shipped back.

I asked for my ESV Legacy to be re-bound  in their "17th Century Country Parson Style (Softcover Version)." I got my Bible back this week, re-bound, and I am very pleased. Here it is:

If you would like to do something similar, or get any book — old or new — restored or just re-bound, consider Leonard's.

Another threat?

Although not [yet] required, this seems consistent with the recent healthcare mandates by HHS:

The Story: Evangelical organizations that partner with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to deliver humanitarian aid overseas are voicing concern and outrage over a new federal policy that "strongly encourages" all contractors to develop anti-discrimination policies covering employees' sexual orientation, says Christianity Today.

The Background: Many Christian charities require employees to agree to adhere to Biblical standards of conduct relating to sexuality. For example, World Vision requires all their U.S. employees to sign a statement of faith and agree to a standard of conduct that limits sexuality to 'a God-ordained covenant between a man and a woman'."

"For a government agency to 'strongly encourage' us to abandon such core beliefs in our hiring policies is offensive and uncalled for," World Vision's senior vice president Kent Hill told Christianity Today. ....

Evangelical Organizations Concerned About Potential Threat to Religious Liberty – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Conservative, not libertarian

While conservatives share many libertarian concerns about overweening government, conservatism isn't libertarianism. Robert P. George reviews a new book by Mark Blitz:

What is it, exactly, that contemporary American conservatism seeks to conserve? What should it conserve? What is worth conserving?

How about liberty?

Most American conservatives would applaud that proposal, which shows, among other things, how far the American Right is from the "throne and altar" conservatism of old Europe, with its class system and devotion to hierarchy and stability. American conservatives are, in truth, old-fashioned liberals—in the tradition of the American Founders, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Abraham Lincoln. Because American conservatives prize liberty, they might be described—as Mark Blitz describes them in his new book, Conserving Liberty—as "conservative liberals."

A professor of political philosophy and the director of the Henry Salvatori Center at Claremont McKenna College, Blitz points out that just as contemporary American conservatism differs from European conservatism, it differs, too, from contemporary liberalism with its "affirmative action, gender politics, and ethnic spoils and sensitivities that affirm such groups." American conservatives believe in equality, to be sure, but theirs is the God-given equality of the Declaration of Independence, not the equality of results or the "equality"—based moral relativism promoted by many contemporary liberals.

Although the book's title might sound like a brief for libertarianism, Blitz quickly sets the reader straight. It is not that he opts for "big government conservatism," but rather that he recognizes that liberty is valuable not so much for its own sake as for the sake of something larger, namely, human excellence or human flourishing. And he understands that liberty is sustained—if it is sustained at all—by virtues that themselves must be transmitted by healthy institutions of civil society, beginning with the marriage-based family and communities of religious faith. .... [more]

At "Public Discourse," Nathan Schlueter explains "Why I am Not a Libertarian"

.... Libertarians are good at explaining why the market works and why government fails, and they have made important policy initiatives in areas such as school choice. On the other hand, they actively oppose laws prohibiting obscenity, protecting unborn children, promoting marriage, limiting immigration, and securing American citizens against terrorists. These positions flow from core principles that have more in common with modern liberalism than with the American founding, and which threaten to erode our constitutional order even further.

The attraction of libertarianism is also its main defect: it offers neat solutions to complex problems. .... [more]

Schlueter than goes on to consider "ten claims libertarians often make."

The Claremont Institute - Conservatism Properly Understood, Why I am Not a Libertarian « Public Discourse

The Wisconsin Supreme Court

Via Althouse, in the beautiful Wisconsin Capitol, the Supreme Court chamber:

"Then friends shall meet again..."

Today Conjubilant with Song posts about one of my favorite American hymns, appropriate for Lent. Two of the verses here were unfamiliar to me, but I like them.

What wondrous love is this, O my soul, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this that caused the Lord of bliss
To lay aside his crown for my soul, for my soul,
To lay aside his crown for my soul.

To God and to the Lamb, I will sing, I will sing;
To God and to the Lamb, I will sing.
To God and to the Lamb who is the great I AM;
While millions join the theme, I will sing, I will sing;
While millions join the theme, I will sing.

And when from death I’m free, I’ll sing on, I’ll sing on;
And when from death I’m free, I’ll sing on.
And when from death I’m free, I’ll sing and joyful be;
And through eternity, I’ll sing on, I’ll sing on;
And through eternity, I’ll sing on.

Then friends shall meet again, who have loved, who have loved,
Then friends shall meet again, who have loved;
Then friends shall meet again, in Jesus' presence, when
We'll meet to part no more, who have loved, who have loved,
We'll meet to part no more, who have loved.

Ye winged seraphs, fly! Bear the news, bear the news.
Ye winged seraphs fly! bear the news;
Ye winged seraphs fly! Like comets through the sky,
Fill vast eternity with the news, with the news,
Fill vast eternity with the news!

Anonymous; composite; 19th cent.
Tune: WONDROUS LOVE (6.6.6.3.6.6.6.6.6.3.)
American folk tune; The Southern Harmony, 1840

The post includes information about the hymn which first appeared in 1811 and includes this about the tune:

The tune for this hymn, adapted from an earlier folk tune, was first printed in the second edition of William Walker's The Southern Harmony (1840), in three-part harmony (and with only one stanza of the text). There have been many different arrangements of the tune since then, not only in hymnals but also as choral anthems and instrumental pieces.

Conjubilant with Song: Like Comets Through the Sky

A focused and intentional neglect

Via Justin Taylor, a good sermon on Sabbath:

J.R. Vassar, pastor of Apostles Church (New York City), talks on Jesus’s words that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28):

J.R. Vassar attributes many of the ideas in this sermon to Mark Buchannan’s The Rest of God: Restoring Your Soul by Restoring Sabbath.

It’s about hermeneutics

How the creation accounts in the first three chapters of Genesis can be reconciled with evolution is one of those questions I largely avoid. I believe in the authority of Scripture and I also think there is ample evidence for an extremely old universe. The question isn't central to my understanding of the faith and so I am content to wait on its resolution, assuming that the apparent contradictions may not be. Others, however, do address the issue, knowing that it can be a stumbling block for those struggling with their faith. Internet Monk re-posts Peter Enns who has, I think, contributed usefully to the "Adam/Evolution discussion." Here is the first of three responses to arguments that Enns identifies as "Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion":

1. It’s all about the authority of the Bible.
I can understand why this claim might have rhetorical effect, but this issue is not about biblical authority. It’s about how the Bible is to be interpreted. It’s about hermeneutics.

It’s always about hermeneutics.

I know that in some circles “hermeneutics” is code for “let’s find a way to get out of the plain meaning of the text.” But even a so-called “plain” or “literal” reading of the Bible is a hermeneutic—an approach to interpretation.

Literalism is a hermeneutical decision (even if implicit) as much as any other approach, and so needs to be defended as much as any other. Literalism is not the default godly way to read the Bible that preserves biblical authority. It is not the “normal” way of reading the Bible that gets a free pass while all others must face the bar of judgment.

So, when someone says, “I don’t read Genesis 1-3 as historical events, and here are the reasons why,” that person is not “denying biblical authority.” That person may be wrong, but that would have to be judged on some basis other than the ultimate literalist conversation-stopper, “You’re denying biblical authority.”

The Bible is not just “there.” It has to be interpreted. The issue is which interpretations are more defensible than others.

To put all this another way, appealing to biblical authority does not tell you how to interpret the Bible. That requires a lot more work. It always has. “Biblical authority” is a predisposition to the text. It is not a hermeneutic. [more]

I haven't yet read the posts beyond the first one at the following links:

• Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion
• More Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion (2)
• Still More Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion (3)
• Two Final Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion (4)

Pete Enns on Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion | internetmonk.com, Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion | Peter Enns

Don't know much about history

Jim Geraghty explains one of the reasons most Americans don't know their country's history very well (another reason is that many of their teachers don't either):

To the extent that our high schools teach American history, they begin before the Revolution and work up to as close to the present as time permits. If your classes were like mine, the process of advancing through history inevitably slowed at points, and everything after World War Two was cramped and rushed to get in before final exams. Maybe the class got up to Vietnam or so. Even in higher education, the not-too-distant history — say, post-Watergate — is relatively uncovered and unexplained, in part because it’s too recent to be “history” and in part because it’s less “interesting” than the bigger conflicts. .... In this country, we’re blessed with a popular fascination with history, but only on certain topics and eras: the American Revolution, the Civil War, the “Old West,” World War Two, the era of Prohibition and Gangsters...

So as much as it may seem that Americans walk around with only a cursory knowledge of key eras of the nation’s history, they’re probably even less informed about not-so-distant history. About a decade ago, among a group of otherwise smart and well-informed friends, I made a reference to Idi Amin. (This was before the release of the movie The Last King of Scotland.) No one knew who I was talking about.

The 9th grade classes I taught were the second full year of US history presented to my students. I began with the turn of the 20th century. Even so, it was difficult to do justice to the post-WWII era — and that amounted to about fifty years. We'd reach the end of the Cold War in foreign policy and a little past Watergate in domestic political events.

Our Recent History: The Undiscovered Country! - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online

Happy Birthday, J.S. Bach!

At the end of the week...

Kevin Emmert at Christianity Today on "The 'Above All' Commandment of the Sabbath":

.... We love those verses that emphasize disciplined activity. Yet most of us probably have never even considered that the Sabbath may be the most important "discipline." Consider this:

And the Lord said to Moses, "You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.'"(Ex. 31:12-13, ESV used throughout)

We may debate how the Sabbath should be observed, but we all recognize the value of taking a day of rest. However, this passage suggests features of the Sabbath we typically overlook.

For example, this passage says that the Sabbath is an "above all" command. It is as if God said, "This is the most important one!" A careful look at the context in the Book of Exodus reinforces the point. ....

...[P]astor Tim Keller said in one interview that though sanctification requires enormous effort, it is not "works based" but rather comes by continuously "reorienting ourselves to our justification." Keller teaches that sanctification is living in accordance with our justification, which is a free gift. Therefore, even in sanctification we acknowledge that God is the primary agent, and that our works contribute nothing on their own. So in both sanctification and justification, Christians are declared righteous and are continually being made righteous solely by the free grace of God. Though we are called to be active, the "activity" seems mostly to mean the call to rest, to trust, to freely receive sanctification from God.

The Sabbath, therefore, helps us realize we completely depend on God for all our needs—physical, emotional, and spiritual.

So, can we just sit back and passively wait for some mystical experience to transform us? As Paul would say, "By no means!" God is not dependent on our doings, but like many aspects of life, he has gladly chosen to use us and our activities to transform us. Thus, the story of Israel remains significant today. Although Israel was instructed to obey God's commands in order to "be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:45), at the end of the week the only thing they had to do was relax; in the midst of their religious busyness, they were called to simply remember that God alone sanctified them. As Paul put it, "So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth" (1 Cor. 3:7). Only God brings about our transformation. That is something we can count on, and rest in. (more)

The 'Above All' Commandment of the Sabbath | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

"Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace”

Jay Nordlinger is the author of Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World, published this week. There is, he writes in the current issue of National Review, "no subject on which it is easier to be glib than that of peace." From that article:

.... We can confidently say what peace is not: It is not the mere absence of war, as President Kennedy noted, and as countless others have noted. And yet, peace is not war either. “I hate war,” said FDR, in that incomparable voice of his. Well, who doesn’t? Who doesn’t hate war, except for psychopaths, some of whom rise to power? And the man who said “I hate war” waged it, in Europe, in the Pacific, and wherever else he found it necessary.

When people debate whether their country should go to war, they are divided into “pro-war” and “anti-war” camps .... Those labels are more than a little unfair; they are at the least bothersome. Are those who conclude that war is necessary, or just, or the lesser of two evils, really pro-war, and not anti-war? ....

You are familiar with the slogan, “War is not the answer.” But it is the answer to some questions, of course — as when it put paid to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Emerson said, “Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.” A fine sentiment, but unfortunately not true — or not strictly true. Again, the Second World War is instructive. And you might say that understanding can lead a person, or a nation, to see that violence is the only way to put down a threat, and thereby keep or attain peace. ....

Bob Dylan has a song called “Man of Peace” — a rather tart and cynical, but not unreasonable, song. “He got a sweet gift of gab, he got a harmonious tongue, / He knows every song of love that ever has been sung. . . . He’s a great humanitarian, he’s a great philanthropist. . . . You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.” That is the song’s refrain: “You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.” And if Dylan’s not your bag, you might consider a line from Psalms — the 28th Psalm — which talks of “the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts.” ....

In 1949, Stalin or the Soviet government — was there a difference? — created the Stalin Peace Prize, more formally the International Stalin Prize for Strengthening Peace among Peoples. This was the Kremlin’s answer to the Nobel Peace Prize. One of the earliest winners was Howard Fast, the American novelist. He received his award from the hand of an even more celebrated American, W.E.B. Du Bois. In his acceptance speech, Fast lamented that neither this prize nor “the name it bears” — Stalin’s — was “greatly honored by the men who govern my country.” But “peace is honored and beloved of millions of the American people, indeed, of almost all of them.” Fast also said, “If I had no other cause for honoring the Soviet Union, I would honor it greatly and profoundly for giving prizes for peace.” (A quick reminder: The Soviet state killed about 20 million people.) ....

And most of the 20 million were killed while the USSR was at "peace."

Peace, They Say by Jay Nordlinger - National Review Online

"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture"

Via Internet Monk, good advice for any Christian who ventures into a dispute without sufficient knowledge. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]   St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

More Tired Rhetoric | internetmonk.com